King's College London

Research portal

Efficacy of sodium and stannous fluoride mouthrinses when used before single and multiple erosive challenges

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Standard

Efficacy of sodium and stannous fluoride mouthrinses when used before single and multiple erosive challenges. / O'Toole, S; Bartlett, D W; Moazzez, R.

In: Australian Dental Journal, 12.2016, p. 497-501.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Harvard

O'Toole, S, Bartlett, DW & Moazzez, R 2016, 'Efficacy of sodium and stannous fluoride mouthrinses when used before single and multiple erosive challenges', Australian Dental Journal, pp. 497-501. https://doi.org/10.1111/adj.12418

APA

O'Toole, S., Bartlett, D. W., & Moazzez, R. (2016). Efficacy of sodium and stannous fluoride mouthrinses when used before single and multiple erosive challenges. Australian Dental Journal, 497-501. https://doi.org/10.1111/adj.12418

Vancouver

O'Toole S, Bartlett DW, Moazzez R. Efficacy of sodium and stannous fluoride mouthrinses when used before single and multiple erosive challenges. Australian Dental Journal. 2016 Dec;497-501. https://doi.org/10.1111/adj.12418

Author

O'Toole, S ; Bartlett, D W ; Moazzez, R. / Efficacy of sodium and stannous fluoride mouthrinses when used before single and multiple erosive challenges. In: Australian Dental Journal. 2016 ; pp. 497-501.

Bibtex Download

@article{0b039041c04341caa4af36fa58744c9d,
title = "Efficacy of sodium and stannous fluoride mouthrinses when used before single and multiple erosive challenges",
abstract = "Background Application of fluoride mouthrinse before an acidic challenge may decrease enamel erosion. This paper compares the efficacy of stannous (SnF2) and sodium (NaF) fluoride when facing single and multiple erosive cycles in vitro. Methods Human enamel samples (N = 60) were randomly assigned to groups testing SnF2 and NaF mouthrinses (225 p.p.m.) and a water control. Samples were allocated into subgroups testing one or five erosive cycles. Samples were immersed in test solution for 1 min prior to citric acid immersion (0.3{\%}, pH 3.2, 10 min), and the cycle repeated either one or five times. Analysis was done using profilometry and microhardness change. Results After one cycle, SnF2 resulted in least step height followed by NaF and water (1.3 μm (0.63), 2.3 μm (0.39), 4.3 μm (0.41) respectively; P < 0.0001). After five cycles SnF2 continued to reduce step height but pre‐application of NaF was no different to water (4.6 μm (0.7), 10.5 μm (1.1) and 11.1 μm (0.38) respectively; P < 0.0001). There were no statistical differences in microhardness change between fluorides. After one erosive cycle, fluoride application resulted in statistically softer enamel compared with water. Conclusions Both SnF2 and NaF reduced erosion after one cycle. After five cycles, SnF2 continued to offer protection whereas NaF was statistically comparable with water. Softening of enamel may not imply less erosion has occurred.",
author = "S O'Toole and Bartlett, {D W} and R Moazzez",
year = "2016",
month = "12",
doi = "10.1111/adj.12418",
language = "English",
pages = "497--501",
journal = "Australian Dental Journal",
issn = "0045-0421",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",

}

RIS (suitable for import to EndNote) Download

TY - JOUR

T1 - Efficacy of sodium and stannous fluoride mouthrinses when used before single and multiple erosive challenges

AU - O'Toole, S

AU - Bartlett, D W

AU - Moazzez, R

PY - 2016/12

Y1 - 2016/12

N2 - Background Application of fluoride mouthrinse before an acidic challenge may decrease enamel erosion. This paper compares the efficacy of stannous (SnF2) and sodium (NaF) fluoride when facing single and multiple erosive cycles in vitro. Methods Human enamel samples (N = 60) were randomly assigned to groups testing SnF2 and NaF mouthrinses (225 p.p.m.) and a water control. Samples were allocated into subgroups testing one or five erosive cycles. Samples were immersed in test solution for 1 min prior to citric acid immersion (0.3%, pH 3.2, 10 min), and the cycle repeated either one or five times. Analysis was done using profilometry and microhardness change. Results After one cycle, SnF2 resulted in least step height followed by NaF and water (1.3 μm (0.63), 2.3 μm (0.39), 4.3 μm (0.41) respectively; P < 0.0001). After five cycles SnF2 continued to reduce step height but pre‐application of NaF was no different to water (4.6 μm (0.7), 10.5 μm (1.1) and 11.1 μm (0.38) respectively; P < 0.0001). There were no statistical differences in microhardness change between fluorides. After one erosive cycle, fluoride application resulted in statistically softer enamel compared with water. Conclusions Both SnF2 and NaF reduced erosion after one cycle. After five cycles, SnF2 continued to offer protection whereas NaF was statistically comparable with water. Softening of enamel may not imply less erosion has occurred.

AB - Background Application of fluoride mouthrinse before an acidic challenge may decrease enamel erosion. This paper compares the efficacy of stannous (SnF2) and sodium (NaF) fluoride when facing single and multiple erosive cycles in vitro. Methods Human enamel samples (N = 60) were randomly assigned to groups testing SnF2 and NaF mouthrinses (225 p.p.m.) and a water control. Samples were allocated into subgroups testing one or five erosive cycles. Samples were immersed in test solution for 1 min prior to citric acid immersion (0.3%, pH 3.2, 10 min), and the cycle repeated either one or five times. Analysis was done using profilometry and microhardness change. Results After one cycle, SnF2 resulted in least step height followed by NaF and water (1.3 μm (0.63), 2.3 μm (0.39), 4.3 μm (0.41) respectively; P < 0.0001). After five cycles SnF2 continued to reduce step height but pre‐application of NaF was no different to water (4.6 μm (0.7), 10.5 μm (1.1) and 11.1 μm (0.38) respectively; P < 0.0001). There were no statistical differences in microhardness change between fluorides. After one erosive cycle, fluoride application resulted in statistically softer enamel compared with water. Conclusions Both SnF2 and NaF reduced erosion after one cycle. After five cycles, SnF2 continued to offer protection whereas NaF was statistically comparable with water. Softening of enamel may not imply less erosion has occurred.

U2 - 10.1111/adj.12418

DO - 10.1111/adj.12418

M3 - Article

SP - 497

EP - 501

JO - Australian Dental Journal

JF - Australian Dental Journal

SN - 0045-0421

ER -

View graph of relations

© 2018 King's College London | Strand | London WC2R 2LS | England | United Kingdom | Tel +44 (0)20 7836 5454